How to Improve the Quality of Patent Applications? (What Law Firms Should Focus On)

— by Sam Zellner

I’ve spent a good part of my career working at the intersection of innovation and intellectual property. And one thing I’ve learned is that the quality of a patent application depends more on the work that happens at the drafting stage as well as what happens before an attorney starts drafting.

Because I’ve seen patent applications, well written ones, fail to capture the full value of inventions.

The description read clearly, and the claims carefully drafted. But sometimes it’s the technical contribution that’s not been understood well enough. Or the disclosure doesn’t support the protection being sought. Sometimes it’s the inadequate relevant and contextual prior art search.

This is why I say, application quality is shaped by more than the quality of the writing. It depends on the decisions made before and during drafting: what the practitioner learns from the inventor:

• how the invention is assessed against existing technology,
• which features the claims emphasize,
• whether the description supports the intended scope.

For law firms, this creates a practical challenge. Clients expect efficient service, but producing applications faster is not the same as improving their quality. And AI can help with parts of the patent workflow. But I think there’s an earlier question worth asking:

Are we doing enough to improve the quality of the invention disclosure before it reaches the attorney?

I believe that’s one of the most important opportunities for law firms looking to improve their patent workflow.

That starts with treating application quality as a process, not simply a final-document review.

What Makes a Patent Application High Quality?

It’s never a single component. It’s a confluence of multiple elements working together that determine the patent application quality.

1. Technical disclosure: The application must explain the invention with enough detail to meet the applicable legal requirements. Describing the intended result is not always enough; the disclosure must explain the relevant technical features and how they work.
2. Claim scope: The claims define the protection being sought. Their scope should reflect the invention’s technical contribution, the relevant prior art and the support available in the application.
3. Description support: The detailed description must provide an adequate basis for the claimed subject matter. A claim cannot be assessed in isolation from the disclosure that supports it.
4. Prior-art analysis: Relevant prior art helps practitioners assess the technical distinctions that may matter to patentability and make informed decisions about claim strategy.
5. Applicant objectives: Drafting choices should also reflect the applicant’s technical and commercial objectives, the intended use of the invention and the jurisdictions in which protection may be sought.

These elements are related, but none can substitute for the others. A detailed description does not resolve every weakness in claim strategy, and a thorough search does not establish patentability by itself.

For law firms, I think the practical implication is that application quality should be assessed across the substance of the work, not just the readability of the document or the time taken to produce it.

The legal standards also vary by jurisdiction.

For instance, US patent law addresses written description and enablement as distinct requirements, while European patent practice separately considers sufficiency of disclosure and clarity. The relevant requirements must guide the assessment of each application.

1. Understand the Technical Contribution Before Drafting

One of the most consequential decisions in patent preparation happens before the claims are finalized. It’s when you determine what the invention actually contributes.

An inventor may explain a problem, describe a proposed solution and demonstrate that it works. But the patent professional must go further. They need to understand how the solution works, which technical features make it possible, how those features relate to one another, and what distinguishes the approach from existing technology.

That understanding cannot be replaced by a polished description of the problem or a list of benefits.

Consider a software-based system that improves the accuracy of industrial equipment monitoring.

Saying that the system predicts failures more accurately describes an intended result. It does not, by itself, explain the technical mechanism that produces the improvement.

The relevant questions might concern how the system processes sensor data, how it identifies patterns, how it handles unreliable inputs, or how its architecture differs from existing approaches.

The same principle applies outside software.

In mechanical, chemical, electrical and other fields, the important technical details will differ, but the underlying task remains the same: understand the substance of the invention rather than relying on the inventor’s summary of its benefits.

This is also where the inventor and patent professional bring different kinds of expertise.

The inventor knows the system’s behavior, development history, engineering constraints and practical alternatives. The patent professional brings the perspective needed to assess the disclosure against existing technology and applicable patent law.

Neither perspective automatically supplies everything the other needs.

A productive discussion therefore goes beyond asking an inventor to explain the idea again. It tests the explanation.

• What technical problem does the invention address, and under what conditions does that problem arise?
• Which features are essential to the proposed solution, and which are implementation choices?
• What happens if a component, step or operating condition changes?
• Which alternative implementations have been considered or demonstrated?
• What technical evidence supports the claimed improvement?
• What is already known in the field, and where might the meaningful distinction lie?

The purpose is to identify the information that matters to understanding and protecting the particular invention.

There is also a limit to what better questioning can accomplish.

A more detailed explanation does not make an invention novel, and an inventor’s assertion that a feature is unique does not establish that it is patentable. Those questions require appropriate technical and legal analysis.

The objective at this stage is more fundamental. To establish a sound understanding of what has been developed before making decisions about how to describe it and what protection to seek.

That understanding provides the foundation for the next challenge, i.e., determining how the invention should be distinguished from the prior art and translated into an appropriate claim strategy.

2. Use Prior Art to Test Your Claim Strategy

A prior-art search should do more than identify similar patents.

It should help you assess the technical distinctions that may matter to patentability assessment and decide how those distinctions should influence the claims.

Imagine your client has developed a battery management system that adjusts charging behavior based on temperature and usage patterns.

A search finds existing patents covering battery monitoring, temperature-based charging controls and adaptive charging systems.

The presence of similar technology does not automatically determine whether the client’s invention is patentable. You need to understand what the references actually disclose and how the proposed invention differs.

Does the system use a different control method? Does it combine known components in a technically meaningful way? Or does the asserted improvement depend on a particular operating condition or sequence of steps? These questions help identify which distinctions warrant closer analysis.

You can take a practical approach.

You may begin with these five steps

1. Start with the technical distinction. Translate the client’s description of benefits, such as faster charging or longer battery life, into the technical features that may produce those results. Assess what is actually different, rather than relying on the client’s preferred wording.
2. Compare the relevant references with the proposed claims. Identify which features each reference discloses and which appear to be absent. Keep the comparison tied to the documents themselves. Saying that an invention is different is not enough; the relevant question is whether the differences matter under the applicable legal standards.
3. Explore appropriate claim alternatives. Consider which features may belong in an independent claim and which may be addressed in dependent claims. Where the available information permits, assess alternative formulations before committing to a strategy. The goal is to understand the options, not to draft every conceivable variation.
4. Document the reasoning. Record the most relevant references, the technical distinctions being considered, the questions that remain unresolved and the reasons for important claim-strategy decisions. This gives the drafting and review team a concrete basis for evaluating the approach.
5. Revisit the analysis when the facts change. Further information from the inventor or additional relevant references may affect the initial assessment. Keep the reasoning open to revision rather than treating the first search as the final word.

A search cannot guarantee patentability, and identifying a feature that one reference does not disclose does not, by itself, establish that a claim is patentable. The analysis must account for the applicable requirements, including novelty and non-obviousness under US law or novelty and inventive step under the European Patent Convention.

The next step is to check whether the application itself provides adequate support for the scope being considered.

3. Make Sure the Description Supports the Claims

A claim may express the intended protection clearly, yet the application may not adequately support its scope. Reviewing the claims alongside the description helps identify that gap before filing, where possible.

I believe to understand a concept, you must visualize it.

So, consider a client developing a machine-learning system that detects faults in industrial equipment.

The initial implementation uses vibration data from a particular sensor. The proposed claims, however, cover systems that use several types of sensor data.

That broader scope may be worth pursuing, but the description needs to provide an adequate basis for it.

Does the application explain how the system would work with those other inputs? Does it describe the relevant technical features, or does it cover only the original implementation and assume that other versions would work in the same way?

Three checks can make this review more systematic.

A. Check whether the claims extend beyond the disclosed implementation.

Read the independent claims alongside the detailed description.

If a claim covers several approaches, assess whether the disclosure supports that breadth or describes only one specific implementation. Pay particular attention to functional language that covers a wide range of ways to achieve a result.

A claim to a system that identifies equipment failures, for example, may cover multiple algorithms, sensor arrangements or processing methods. Whether that scope is appropriate depends on the disclosure and the applicable legal requirements.

B. Check whether the important technical features are explained.

A lengthy description can still leave critical details unclear.

Look for steps that are asserted rather than explained, relationships between components that remain ambiguous, and operating conditions that appear essential but receive little attention.

Ask whether a person skilled in the relevant field could carry out the claimed invention based on the disclosure, applying the appropriate legal standard. The assessment depends on the technical field, the knowledge available to that person and the subject matter being claimed. More detail is not automatically better; the aim is to disclose what the applicable requirements demand.

C. Check the basis for changes before finalizing amendments.

When a claim changes after feedback from an inventor, client or reviewer, examine where the application as filed supports the revised language. Do not assume that missing technical information can always be added later.

In the United States, written description and enablement are distinct requirements under Section 112(a). In Europe, sufficiency of disclosure and the restriction on adding subject matter beyond the application as filed raise related but distinct questions under the European Patent Convention. The applicable rules depend on the jurisdiction and procedural stage.

For reference, consult the USPTO’s written description guidance, its enablement guidance, and the EPO Guidelines on sufficiency of disclosure.

Use a claim-support table during review

For important claim limitations, record where the application describes the feature, whether it explains how the feature works, and whether the proposed claim scope raises questions that need further analysis.

The table is a review aid, not a substitute for legal judgment. Its value is in making gaps visible and giving the team a specific basis for resolving them.

A strong application does not need to describe every conceivable variation. It needs to provide an adequate basis for the protection being sought under the applicable law.

4. Review for Substantive Weaknesses, Not Just Drafting Errors

Proofreading catches errors in grammar, formatting and terminology.

Those checks matter, but they do not tell you whether the application is technically accurate, whether important issues remain unresolved or whether the drafting decisions are appropriate.

For a patent law firm, the challenge is to make substantive review consistent across the team without subjecting every matter to the same lengthy process.

Set clear review criteria

A common review framework helps attorneys and reviewers focus on the issues that matter. Depending on the invention and jurisdiction, it might cover:

• Accuracy of the technical description against the information supplied by the inventor.
• The reasoning behind important claim-strategy decisions.
• Consistency between the claims and the disclosure.
• Unresolved technical questions or assumptions.
• Completion of relevant jurisdiction-specific checks.

The framework should guide review, not turn it into a mechanical exercise. A straightforward invention may require less scrutiny than a complex system with several interacting components or difficult questions about claim scope.

Look for patterns across matters

The review process can also reveal problems that are difficult to spot when each application is considered in isolation.

Suppose reviewers repeatedly find that important technical details are missing, or that questions for inventors arise late in drafting. Those patterns may point to a need for better intake questions, clearer drafting guidance or earlier technical discussions.

Similarly, if several reviewers identify the same type of weakness, the firm can examine whether its guidance and training address the issue consistently.

The aim is not simply to add another approval stage. It is to identify where the process allows avoidable problems to persist and address their causes.

Measure whether review improves the work

Track the issues that lead to meaningful rework, when they are discovered and whether they could reasonably have been identified earlier. Depending on the firm’s workflow, useful measures might include recurring review comments, late requests for technical clarification and time spent correcting substantive problems.

Interpret these measures carefully.

More review comments do not necessarily mean poorer quality; they may indicate that reviewers are identifying issues that previously went unnoticed. Likewise, fewer comments do not prove that applications have improved.

A related lesson appears in the US Government Accountability Office’s 2025 review of patent examination quality.

The GAO reported that USPTO examiners in focus groups described pressure to prioritize examination output, and it identified weaknesses in some of the office’s quality measurement practices.

These findings concern the patent office, not private law firms, but they illustrate why output volume alone is an incomplete measure of quality.

For law firm leaders, the practical starting point is to review a sample of completed matters, categorize the substantive issues found and identify which could have been addressed earlier.

Use those findings to refine the process, then assess whether the changes reduce avoidable rework or help the team identify important issues sooner.

5. Use AI Where It Improves the Work, Not Just the Speed

When evaluating AI for patent practice, start with the work you want to improve, not the features a vendor demonstrates.

A tool may generate a draft in minutes, but that tells you little about the total effort required to produce reliable work. You also need to account for verification, corrections, technical accuracy and the review burden placed on attorneys.

Start with a defined task

Some AI applications are relatively straightforward to evaluate.

A firm might test whether a tool can summarize technical documents, identify inconsistent terminology, organize inventor responses, suggest search concepts or flag sections that need closer review.

Other uses require greater scrutiny because they can influence substantive decisions.

Generating claim language, proposing technical alternatives and summarizing prior art may be useful, but the output needs to be checked against the underlying documents and applicable legal requirements.

For example, ask an AI tool to compare an invention disclosure with two relevant patent documents. Check whether it accurately identifies the features each document discloses, distinguishes documented facts from its own inferences, and points to the passages supporting its conclusions.

A fluent summary is not enough. The tool needs to represent the source material accurately.

Measure the complete workflow

Before adopting a tool across the practice, test it on a defined set of representative matters. Agree on the evaluation criteria before the trial and compare the AI-assisted workflow with the firm’s existing approach.

Consider five questions:

• How much attorney time does each workflow require, including verification and revision?
• Does the tool omit important technical details or introduce unsupported statements?
• Does it help reviewers identify substantive issues, or mainly improve formatting and readability?
• Can important statements be traced to reliable source material?
• Does it reduce avoidable rework without creating new review burdens?

Track the time spent correcting errors as well as the time saved generating content. A tool that produces an initial draft faster may not improve overall efficiency if it creates more work during verification.

Set confidentiality and review safeguards

Before staff enter sensitive invention material into an AI tool, establish rules for client confidentiality, data handling, access permissions and human review.

Check the provider’s actual contractual terms and technical controls.

Understand how submitted data is stored, retained, used and accessed, and whether the service’s terms meet the firm’s obligations to its clients.

A general claim that an AI service is secure is not enough to establish that it is suitable for confidential patent work.

The Japan Patent Attorneys Association’s 2025 guidance on AI use in patent attorney work discusses potential benefits alongside risks such as inaccurate outputs and confidentiality concerns.

It can inform internal safeguards, but firms must also follow the professional obligations and rules applicable in their own jurisdictions.

AI should support the work of the professionals responsible for an application, not obscure who made or verified the important decisions.

The test is practical: does the tool improve the quality or efficiency of a defined task once checking and correction are included?

If the firm cannot demonstrate that benefit, faster generation alone is not a sufficient reason to adopt it.

Make Patent Application Quality a Deliberate Part of Your Practice

You don’t need to overhaul your entire patent preparation process to start improving application quality. Begin by examining where your current workflow allows substantive issues to go unnoticed or creates avoidable rework.

Select a sample of recently completed applications.

Categorize the issues identified during drafting, review and prosecution. Look for patterns:

• Were technical details missing from the initial disclosure?
• Did important questions reach the inventor too late?
• Did reviewers identify inconsistencies that could have been caught earlier?

Choose one recurring problem and address its cause. That might mean improving the questions asked during invention intake, clarifying review criteria or changing how the team evaluates AI-assisted work. Then assess whether the change helps the team identify issues earlier or reduces avoidable rework.

The aim is not to add more process for its own sake. It is to make the process more effective at the points where better information and decisions can improve the work.

That effort can begin before drafting.

A clear, structured invention disclosure gives patent professionals a stronger starting point for understanding the technical contribution, identifying missing information and deciding what needs further investigation.

Improve the work before drafting begins

I’ve always believed that the quality of a patent application depends on more than how well it’s drafted. It starts much earlier, with how well we understand the invention in the first place.

Have we captured the important technical details? Did we explore the relevant prior arts, contextually? Have we given the inventor enough guidance to explain what makes their invention different?

These are the things worth getting right before drafting begins.

That’s the thinking behind InspireIP.

We help teams capture inventions, develop disclosures, explore prior art, and evaluate inventions before making filing decisions.

The idea isn’t to replace the attorney’s judgment. It’s to give attorneys and IP teams a better starting point.

If this is something your team is working on, I’d be happy to show you how we approach it at InspireIP.